In the West, the
theory of evolution continues to be
promoted as if it were a proven fact or
a secure, testable and tested law -
something that no-one in their right
minds questions any more. This
presentation implies that there is no
room, let alone any need, for
discussion. The most common media cliche
is that the evolutionary chain has been
confirmed yet again by yet another
discovery of the missing link proving
human ancestry from apes. Faced with
this kind of promotion and presentation,
and the sheer pervasiveness of it, it is
no surprise if non-specialists come to
accept that the theory must be true, and
that it must be accepted by all the
specialists, the whole scientific
community, with no serious doubters.
However, that perception is far from the
reality. In the first place, the theory
lacks completeness on two major counts
and there is no likelihood of these
deficiencies ever being made up. In the
second, there are major voices of
dissent from within the scientific
community, alongside alternative
theoretical explanations which
demonstrate a far superior conformity
with observed or experimentally obtained
data.

The origin of life

To have any enduring
claim to viability the theory of
evolution must explain the origin of
life in its own terms. It must be able
to answer the question, “How did life
evolve from non-living forms?’ It
needs also to explain how the notion of
“selection for survival” operates
before life exists, to explain how “life”
is the best way for non-living forms to
exist longer. Just as the theory tells
us that, because rhinoceroses with the
thickest skin did best in battles with
other rhinoceroses, over aeons of time
rhinoceroses evolved skins as thick as
skins can possibly get while still
functioning as skins ñ so too, it needs
to tell us how life is an adaptation. If
it is, what is it an adaptation to?
Moreover, if life is an adaptation, why
is it the same across the whole range of
living forms (animal or plant or
in-between)? We have innumerable
varieties of living forms (adapted, we
are told, to different conditions of
climate and competition for food
resources) but we do not have different
varieties of being alive. Is that what
we should expect? Should we not expect
that the creatures who lived longest
(and had offspring the least often)
would have out-survived all competition,
until eventually they lived so long it
was for ever? Or, vice-versa that those
who lived the shortest lives (and
therefore had more offspring more often)
eventually fell back, after aeons of
trial and proof, into hardly being alive
at all individually, but merely
replicating themselves? In fact, of
course, the same climate and conditions
of competition for food resources
support both relatively long- and
relatively short-lived forms at every
level of complexity and thoroughly
intermingled within even the same
individual life-form.

Life rests upon an
infinitely precarious equilibrium among
the proteins, the building blocks of
life, found in the simplest to the most
complex of living forms. Denying the
existence of a conscious Creator, the
theory of evolution cannot explain how
this equilibrium was established and
protected. The theory proposes chance
and coincidence as the only scientific
way to think about the question. But a
scientific way of looking at a problem
must have at least some likelihood of
being true, if we are to expend energy
fruitfully on verifying or falsifying
it. In other words, a hypothesis must be
reasonable to start with so that we can
test and judge it. It must not be
irrational: the appeal to chance and
random coincidences is nothing if not an
abandonment of reason. A protein is made
up of the combination of on average
1000-1500 amino acids in 20 different
types in a certain sequence. Even a
single error in that sequence renders
the protein useless. There is zero
probability of this happening by chance,
not even if the universe is billions of
light-years wide and long. One of the
foremost advocates of evolution, the
Russian scientist A.I. Oparin confesses
this impossibility in his book The
Origin of Life (pp.132-133). Even
the simplest of these materials
(proteins), consisting of thousands of
carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen
atoms, each with a unique design
presents highly sophisticated structure.
For those who study the structure of the
proteins, it is as hopeless for these
proteins to have formed by chance as the
for the Aeneid (the long Latin epic by
Virgil) to have been composed by random
association of the letters of the Latin
alphabet.

Another evolutionist
scientist has offered a different
analogy with the same conclusion. The
probability of a chance formation of
only one of the proteins required for
life (Cytochrome-C) may be likened to
the probability of a monkey writing out
the history of humanity by randomly
pushing the keys of a typewriter.

What evolution theory
defends is exactly this nonsensical
assertion. Yet, the examples above are
only the probability calculations for
the chance formation of a single
protein. However, millions of similar
impossible coincidences should have been
realized consecutively in order for the
evolution of life to be effected.

The probability of
chance formation of a Cytochrome-C
sequence is as low as zero. If life
requires that certain sequence, it is
likely to be realized only once in the
whole life-time and space of the
universe. Now it could be proposed that
some metaphysical power(s) beyond our
definition consciously enabled its
formation. But to entertain such a
proposition is, apparently, not
appropriate for the modern enterprise of
science. Therefore we have to fall back
on the first hypothesis as the best we
have at present.

If, as it appears,
the theory of evolution is not justified
by the information we have, how does it
survive? Has questioning it become,
among the specialists, a taboo which
they violate at the risk of their
reputation and their careers? If so,
why? We will return to this question.

The problem of
transitional forms

Another of many
difficulties with the theory of
evolution is that the theory requires
there to exist or have existed in the
past transitional forms. For example, if
the theory claims, as it does, that life
originated in the sea and then sea
creatures were driven (by some force,
let us say, a climatic change like a
fall in sea-level) to move on to dry
land, the theory must produce evidence
(or at least convincing argument) of the
transitional forms between the
sea-creatures and the land-creatures
they evolved into. Our present
experience of, for example, fish, is
that if they come out of the water, they
very quickly die. We have no reason to
believe that fish were so radically
different aeons ago from what they are
now. If anything, the evidence is all
the other way: that fish as fish were
the same then as now. So how could
enough of them have lived long enough in
shallow-water or no-water to establish
in their gene pool the skill to evolve
gills into lungs? Nobody can say that
maybe some of these fish happened to
acquire a lung at the end of the
four-millionth year while they were in
the throes of death. It is entirely
nonsensical. But this nonsense is
exactly what the evolutionists assert.
The same problem arises when we look for
transitional forms between land-bound
reptiles and flying birds.

Some allegedly
extinct intermediate transitional forms
have turned out to exemplify only the
temptations of forgery and distortion in
the service of falsehood into which some
scientists have allowed themselves to
fall. For instance, the fish Coelacanth
(Rhipitistian Crossopterigian) presented
by evolutionists as a transitional form
between marine and land creatures ,and
supposedly extinct about 70 million
years ago, was found alive and well in
1939 near Madagascar, and has been
caught about 50 times since in the open
seas. Furthermore, the organs that
prompted the evolutionists to present
the coelacanth as the transitional
intermediate form (inner ear alcoves,
head typed backbone and swimming bag),
do not have these properties at all. The
same is true for other fossils presented
as transitional intermediate forms. The
well-known nature scientist A.H. Clark
acknowledges that, since we have no
single evidence indicating a transition
between fossils and living groups, we
must accept that such transitional forms
never existed.

A well-known genetic
and evolutionist, Richard B. Goldschimdt
admits that there is no such a thing as
the transitional intermediate form. He
explains the differences in species by
sudden leaps. Now to say that a species
originated all of a sudden is tantamount
to saying that it was consciously
originated or “created”. Although
the evolutionists are embarrassed on
scientific platforms, they do not have a
hard time deceiving the ordinary person
in the street, because the theory is so
well-packaged. You draw an imaginary
schema representing transition from
water from land, you invent Latin words
for the animal in water, and for its
descendant on land, and you draw
sketches of both (both wholly imaginary
constructs), and the package is
completed or, as we should rather say,
fabricated. “Eusthenopteron
transformed into first Rhipitistian
Crossoptergian, then Ichthyostega in a
long evolution process.” If you put
these words in the mouth of a scientist
with thick glasses and a white apron,
you are half way to convincing most
people. For the great many people who
see reality through the media packaging
of it, this kind of presentation is good
enough to be truth: it is easy to
believe, it makes no demand on
consciousness, or reason, or conscience:
we are all here by chance, we are not
here by the will of a Creator to Whom we
are answerable.

The most common
package is, inevitably, the one that
relates to human beings. A central
feature is the string of related
sketches (all imaginary constructions)
of an all-ape, three-quarters-ape,
half-ape/half-man figure, gradually
ending in a drawing that looks more or
less like a European male of average
build an features. This is offered as
our story, our beginning long ago, our
present being now. This string of
sketches will be found on virtually
every classroom wall, from primary
schools to secondary schools and in
every popular textbook or encyclopedia
which touches upon the subject, and in
the form of stuffed exhibits in every
science museum in the West.

In these drawings,
half-ape half-human creatures are seen
as a family. Having a hairy body, a
slightly bent walking posture, and a
face in between a man and an ape, these
creatures are supposedly drawn from the
fossils found by the evolutionist
scientists. But the fossils found give
information only about the bone
structure and skeleton, and examination
of the teeth will reveal information
about the probable range of diet. The
fossils tell us nothing at all about how
hairy the body was that hung upon those
bones, nor what kind of nose, ears, lips
or hair would once have rested upon the
particular skull. But the evolutionists’
sketches picture do, almost always, show
the organs like nose, lips and ears, and
these are drawn (to fit the theory) and
do indeed show something half-man,
half-ape. This is not science, it is
fiction or, more precisely, it is myth.
Another support for this fiction, and
another proof that it is fiction, is
that the same bundle of bones can give
be made to give rise to quite different
re-constructions, depending upon the
particular theorist’s preference: for
example, the three totally unlike
re-constructions of the fossil called
Australopithecus Robustus (Zinjanthropus).
There is certainly a power behind these
presentations of the theory, but it is
not the power of reason disciplined by
facts and evidence, but the power of
myth-making imagination inspired by a
particular ideology.

The ideological
background to the theory

In order to
understand why the evolution theory is
promoted and defended so insistently, we
need to look to the historical
background behind it. Until the modern
period, the intellectual life of Europe
was basically subject to the authority
of the Church. Starting from the 16th
century, the order justified and
underpinned by the authority of
religious beliefs and principles started
to conflict with the interests of
certain social groups. Acquiring great
wealth through commerce but having no
political power, these groups began a
long struggle to limit the authority of
the Church. They did so not only on the
political and social fronts but also on
the philosophical front: religious
beliefs and the authority of religion
had to be weakened before the
social-political system underpinned by
religion could be radically reformed.
Almost all the 18th century “enlightenment”
intellectuals and 19th century
positivists came from these secularizing
groups and were funded and supported by
them. (The French Revolution was the
biggest single social transformation
realized by their machinations.)

The space opened by
the weakening or elimination of
religious beliefs was filled by new
ideologies generated by the same social
groups. The first ideology was
liberalism, followed by socialism which
developed as a reaction to it. Later
came fascism meddled with racism.
Despite containing some opposing ideas,
these ideologies were all by-products of
the new secular system and stood on the
same anti-religionist ground. None of
them spoke of the man’s responsibility
before his Creator or the obligation to
organize personal and collective life
according to His guidance. Conversely,
the principles that necessitated belief
in religion were harmful to the new
ideologies. One of the most important of
these principles is that man was
created, as the Church had always held
(following the same belief in Judaism),
by God in His own image, for the purpose
of doing His will and worshipping Him.

It was very
noteworthy that socialism, the most
radical and outspokenly anti-religious
of the modern ideologies, showed a
particular zeal for the theory of
evolution. Karl Marx wrote of Darwin’s
Origin of Species in a letter to his
comrade Friedrich Engels (dated December
18, 1860) that this book presented the
natural-historical basis for their
critique of capitalism (Marx and
Engels Letters, vol. 2, p.426).

Darwinism laid the
basis for fascism which is one of the
by-products of the new secular order.
Holding some human races superior to the
others, this notion proposed that some
races were in advance of others in the
evolutionary process. This trend called
Social Darwinism inspired many racists
from Arthur de Gobineau to Adolf Hitler.
Darwin himself prepared the ground for
racism by proposing that the white man
was more advanced in evolutionary terms.

Besides socialism and
fascism, the capitalist ideology
dominant in the Western world and now in
nearly the whole world, needs people to
believe in evolution. To undermine
people’s commitment to religion and
moral principles, to reduce their
aspirations and relationships to merely
economic ones, it was necessary to
convince them that man was not created
by God as a morally responsible being.
It is very noteworthy that major
capitalist dynasties like Rockefeller
and Carnegie come first among those who
have granted funds and other support to
the flourishing of Darwinism in the
U.S.A. Michael A. Cremo and Richard L.
Thompson, in their book The Hidden
History of the Human Race, explain how
the Carnegie Institution was virtually
aiming for the victory of the scientific
cosmological vision over the old
religious cosmologies. The Rockefeller
Foundation supports the same materialist
cosmology and serves the mission of “modern
civilization’, aiming to confine the
concepts of God and spirit to the
mythology museum. The evolution
propaganda promoted in the distinguished
media organs of the West, and reputable
science journals is a consequence of
this ideological requirement.

Conclusion

No ideological
program, whatever the illusions of its
supporters, and whatever their means of
promoting and packaging their untruths,
can survive for ever. Precisely because
man is God’s creature, made for
nobility of being and action, he must
and will seek truth, albeit temporarily
deviated.

All the information
revealed by modern biology shows that
the origin of life, especially the
molecular structure of living creatures,
cannot be explained by coincidence in
any way. The transcendent consciousness
ruling over the whole universe is the
ultimate evidence of God’s existence.
As a matter of fact, some eminent names
in microbiology have come to the point
where they cannot defend evolution any
longer. Instead, another theory has
begun to get a long overdue hearing
among these scientists: the theory of
conscious design. The scientists
defending it remark that it is very
evident that life has been created by a
conscious designer.